CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
In a way I agree. He must have spoken to Obama's election campaign management and asked them to give him a few pointers on mass appeal (no pun intended) and how to make people think you actually care about them when that is the farthest from the truth.
I agree that he is trying to reach out to non-believers at least partly to say "The Church ain't so bad! Convert!" But to say that the Pope is only interested in his own political agenda I feel is overly cynical. Remember this is a guy who actually turned down the papacy last time it was offered to him, i.e. he's not just in it for the popularity ;). Also, I don't think that the Pope holds anywhere near as much power today as the US government does, that probably means less corruption... I EVEN feel that Obama's not such a bad guy either (if you remove all of the political pressures and whatnot).
I think it is rather naive to assume that any statement by any political and/or religious leader is devoid of an agenda, or even only minimally influenced by an agenda. That does not make them a bad person and it does not have to be a judgement; it is simply a reality.
As for less power equating less corruption, there are relatively more corrupt countries wielding relatively less power than the United States; your causality is flawed.
I think this Pope is trying to reform the Catholic Church and bring it up to date, making it forward instead of backward thinking. I think his ideas can only help the Church and make it more accepting instead of pushing people away.
I bet he's not popular with some of the more "traditional" Catholics!!
Are you sure of your statement? I think he is the first Pope to finally realize the bible is a book of texts written in a time that is not our own. I believe he is trying to bring the "bible" into the 21st century!
Considering the significant difference in cultural understanding between contemporary times and when the Bible was originally written, and accounting for multiple rewritings and translations... it is rather an unwieldy assertion to claim that your contemporary interpretation is any more correct than that of the Pope (or of anyone else for that matter).
Both of those were civic laws of the nation of Israel. They were grounded national laws, like that of America's laws. Because Israel is no longer a grounded nation of God's people, we do not follow these laws. But, if you are asking whether they deserve it, then I would say "yes" to both of them. We love by the law of grace, though, now, also, since we have a new high priest, Christ.
They were God's laws. It says it pretty clearly in the Bible.
Yes, they were God's laws. However, God's laws do not apply to everyone in every situation. Some things are justified in x situation, while they are immoral in another situation. For example, murder is wrong, but killing is not inherently wrong, since sometimes it is justified.
Do you not like justice? The woman in the context of the verse you are talking is in malice. Children should honor their parents. Both of these are evil and deserve justice.
How many religions did you study before becoming a Christian? Were you raised a Christian? You're brainwashed. You ignore history in order to support your beliefs. It may seem like what's right to you, but you appear blind to outsiders. It's one thing to look at life as a mystery, it's another to jump right into a conclusion, especially a religious one, and claim that it is true. You have absolutely no idea. Open your eyes and accept the world as a mystery, because you are wasting time being so closed minded. The only reason that I can't accept the Bible as a likely theory of our existence, is because history contradicts it... BIG TIME. If I offended you, sorry... but it's really something that you should think about.
How many religions did you study before becoming a Christian?
About 8.
Were you raised a Christian?
No.
You're brainwashed.
In one sense, yes, while in another sense, not at all. I think that everything in the world supports Christianity (no side); but if everything were to be against Christianity, and the truth were not in Christ, I would prefer to remain in Christ, than the truth (yes side).
You ignore history in order to support your beliefs.
History supports Christianity.
It may seem like what's right to you, but you appear blind to outsiders.
Of course, the Bible says that the natural man does not understand the things of the Spirit.
It's one thing to look at life as a mystery, it's another to jump right into a conclusion, especially a religious one, and claim that it is true.
The ontological argument displays how every view about religion, both atheistic and theistic and etc, is subverted into a belief-properly-so-called and cannot be taken on anything except faith. We must assume for the God of the Bible, first, since it is a belief like that of believing logic to be logical or reality to be reality.
You have absolutely no idea.
What do I not have any idea about? I understand yall perfectly.
Open your eyes and accept the world as a mystery, because you are wasting time being so closed minded.
How am I being closed-minded? I do think of it as a mystery.
The only reason that I can't accept the Bible as a likely theory of our existence, is because history contradicts it... BIG TIME.
It actually doesn't...... awkward.......
If I offended you, sorry... but it's really something that you should think about.
I think about it more than you probably think. And everything you have said has been found wanting.
You made it pretty clear when you said that a child should be stoned to death.
About 8.
And you failed to see the pattern in all of them?
No.
Atheist?
History supports Christianity.
No it doesn't! Go ahead and give me some evidence that supports it and I'll give you some that doesn't. The problem with your evidence, is that you need a lot... while with mine, I only need one clear contradiction to put the entire Bible into question.
Of course, the Bible says that the natural man does not understand the things of the Spirit.
You made it pretty clear when you said that a child should be stoned to death.
That doesn't follow.
And you failed to see the pattern in all of them?
Christianity is fundamentally different from them all.
Atheist?
Yep. My mom's in mensa and hates me being a religious philosopher, since she can't beat me in an argument now.
No it doesn't! Go ahead and give me some evidence that supports it and I'll give you some that doesn't. The problem with your evidence, is that you need a lot... while with mine, I only need one clear contradiction to put the entire Bible into question.
As C.S Lewis said, when someone says something, then they are either telling the truth or telling a lie; if it is a lie, then it is either a knowledgable lie or an unknowledgeable lie.
Jesus was said to have risen from the grave.
It can't be a knowledgeable lie, since every Apostle went to the grave for it, James and Paul radically converted for it, and no Jews at the time thought the Messiah would be resurrected, let alone die.
It can't be an unknowledgeable lie, since all the Apostles stories match up, Paul's witness to the resurrection and the corresponding facts about it were all completely in line with what the other Apostles believed, and no Jews at the time thought the Messiah would be resurrected, let alone die.
Hence, the only logical option is that it was the truth. Jesus died and was resurrected. Bart Ehram, a New Testament historian and atheist, when debating William Lane Craig, you can find the debate online, was put into this very same situation of having to grapple with this truth; he said that the logical thing is to believe it was true, from the historical evidence, but that the event of Jesus being resurrected from the grave by the power of God was an insane thought and he couldn't believe it. He admitted that the only thing stopping him from believing was his naturalistic presuppositionalistic philosophy. Hence, logically Jesus rose from the grave. This proves that He was whom He said He was. This means that what He said was true. This means that any evidence against the Bible historically is irrelevant, since God has already informed us of the truth.
So.... yeah..... history actually supports Christianity....... Sorry.......
The Bible would say that, wouldn't it?
1 Corinthians 2:14 -- "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned."
It actually does... even more awkward....
It actually doesn't..... mmmmmmmm....... super awkward......
You might not want to compete with logic.... just saying. :)
Christianity is fundamentally different from them all.
Not really...
Yep. My mom's in mensa and hates me being a religious philosopher, since she can't beat me in an argument now.
Ah, can't argue with crazy.
It can't be a knowledgeable lie, since every Apostle went to the grave for it, James and Paul radically converted for it, and no Jews at the time thought the Messiah would be resurrected, let alone die.
First, you would have to prove that the apostles actually existed.
It can't be an unknowledgeable lie, since all the Apostles stories match up, Paul's witness to the resurrection and the corresponding facts about it were all completely in line with what the other Apostles believed, and no Jews at the time thought the Messiah would be resurrected, let alone die.
Again, you have to prove that the Apostles actually existed. We don't have record of anything from the Apostles, not even their Gospels count. It's no secret that the Bible was passed down orally for many years after the supposed events took place.
Hence, the only logical option is that it was the truth. Jesus died and was resurrected.
So it's only logical based off the evidence that you acquired from the Bible? Cool, so you don't actually know of any historical evidence, do you?
So.... yeah..... history actually supports Christianity....... Sorry.......
You gave me nothing. Your "religious philosophy" may stump your mom, but it's just a bunch of bullshit to me. It's just a way for you to avoid answering the question directly. I asked for historical evidence, you gave me a way of thought inspired by the guy who wrote the Narnia books.
1 Corinthians 2:14
I know it said it, I was just pointing out how it's a typical religious cover up. A quick fix to try and cover something that puts the Bible in question.
It actually doesn't..... mmmmmmmm....... super awkward......
You might not want to compete with logic.... just saying. :)
I'm waiting for you to make the first move on this historical accuracy argument so that I can dispute your claims (assuming that they are false), but you haven't given me anything yet except a bunch of philosophical garbage that can only be supported through religious belief.
First, you would have to prove that the apostles actually existed.
The Bible is good enough evidence for the Apostles having existed. Historians generally say that they existed, since they make off-handed commented about one another in different letters to different people. Historians of the time also have recorded their adventures. The apostles were real. Ask any historian. If you doubt that, then I can't argue with irrationality.
Again, you have to prove that the Apostles actually existed. We don't have record of anything from the Apostles, not even their Gospels count. It's no secret that the Bible was passed down orally for many years after the supposed events took place.
Of course the Gospels count. You really should look into history.... Historians don't just say that since the Bible is about supernatural things, then it is untrustworthy. They take even the Bible itself to say that the Apostles were true. If you doubt this, then I'm not going to be able to prove anything to you... not even George Washington being real. And the Bible (New Testament( is mainly letters, which were written primarily before the Gospels. And they all make off-handed remarks about the other Apostles.
So it's only logical based off the evidence that you acquired from the Bible? Cool, so you don't actually know of any historical evidence, do you?
Oh I do. But that is irrelevant, since all of this is irrelevant. You are only focussing on the Apostles. My other argument, which holds a lot more water is that the Jews didn't believe that the Messiah would die or resurrect. Even if the Apostles weren't real, you would still have to account for why Jesus was even being recorded as being true.
You gave me nothing. Your "religious philosophy" may stump your mom, but it's just a bunch of bullshit to me. It's just a way for you to avoid answering the question directly. I asked for historical evidence, you gave me a way of thought inspired by the guy who wrote the Narnia books.
And historians have generally accepted. Hey, if you don't want to do the research, then fine. I gave you citation by a dude name Bart Ehrman who is an atheist and a New Testament historian who says that Jesus was true, that the Apostles were real, that Jesus died and was buried, then somehow He was reported to have been resurrected from the grave. He admits to all of this; the only reason he doesn't believe, from a purely logical and historical standpoint, is because of his naturalistic philosophy.
I know it said it, I was just pointing out how it's a typical religious cover up. A quick fix to try and cover something that puts the Bible in question.
Not at all. If you read the context, then you would see it is talking about how the world will mock Christians, thinking them ignorant, while they are actually the intellectual elite.
I'm waiting for you to make the first move on this historical accuracy argument so that I can dispute your claims (assuming that they are false), but you haven't given me anything yet except a bunch of philosophical garbage that can only be supported through religious belief.
And this is where we are done. This was historical. If you don't want to believe it, then so be it.
The Bible is good enough evidence for the Apostles having existed.
Okay, then by your logic Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Scientology, etc. are all correct.
Historians generally say that they existed, since they make off-handed commented about one another in different letters to different people.
There has been no conclusive evidence regarding the existence of the apostles. If you know of any, please share.
Historians of the time also have recorded their adventures.
Well, that would make sense, wouldn't it? It was all passed down orally back then. Going off the assumption that the Bible is false, the bullshit could have been far reaching.
The apostles were real. Ask any historian. If you doubt that, then I can't argue with irrationality.
Historians can't even agree on whether or not Jesus existed. I will admit, the existence of the apostles is more likely to be true, but historians really don't have much evidence regarding the apostles ever existing.
Of course the Gospels count.
Not if they're false.
You really should look into history.... Historians don't just say that since the Bible is about supernatural things, then it is untrustworthy.
Don't get me wrong, there is a lot in the Bible that's accurate... but a lot of it has been proven inaccurate as well. That puts almost the entire Bible in question.
They take even the Bible itself to say that the Apostles were true. If you doubt this, then I'm not going to be able to prove anything to you... not even George Washington being real.
Everyone agrees on George Washington's existence, not everyone agrees on the characters of the Bible.
And the Bible (New Testament( is mainly letters, which were written primarily before the Gospels. And they all make off-handed remarks about the other Apostles.
New Testament consists of primarily oral traditions, passed down from generation to generation until they were finally written. Jesus' words were passed orally for about three decades after his "resurrection" before they were finally written down. However, there are the letters of Paul, which were written at least 25 years after Christ. The gospels were written years later. Papyrus, which these letters were supposedly written on, didn't really appear outside of Egypt until the second century.
Oh I do. But that is irrelevant, since all of this is irrelevant.
Okay, I don't believe you... but alright.
My other argument, which holds a lot more water is that the Jews didn't believe that the Messiah would die or resurrect. Even if the Apostles weren't real, you would still have to account for why Jesus was even being recorded as being true.
The same could be said for any other religion and their religious figures.
And historians have generally accepted. Hey, if you don't want to do the research, then fine.
You keep saying "historians", what historians? Trust me, I've done a lot of research. I've read papers by historians and sat through lectures at college that contradict what you say. Maybe it's safe to assume that not every historian comes to the same conclusion. It seems to me that you agree with whichever historic findings support your beliefs.
I gave you citation by a dude name Bart Ehrman who is an atheist and a New Testament historian who says that Jesus was true
Okay... what's your point? He's the top historian? I should take his word over every other historian's?
Not at all. If you read the context, then you would see it is talking about how the world will mock Christians, thinking them ignorant, while they are actually the intellectual elite.
Do you think that the Bible is the only religious text that warns against the mockery they will face?
And this is where we are done. This was historical. If you don't want to believe it, then so be it.
You can't just say that it's historical and expect me to buy into it. You're going to have to give me something better than C.S. Lewis and Bart whatever his name is.
How many religions did you study before becoming a Christian? Were you raised a Christian? You're brainwashed. You ignore history in order to support your beliefs. It may seem like what's right to you, but you appear blind to outsiders. It's one thing to look at life as a mystery, it's another to jump right into a conclusion, especially a religious one, and claim that it is true. You have absolutely no idea. Open your eyes and accept the world as a mystery, because you are wasting time being so closed minded. The only reason that I can't accept the Bible as a likely theory of our existence, is because history contradicts it... BIG TIME. If I offended you, sorry... but it's really something that you should think about.
I think this pope is trying to appeal to every type of person ,a lot of the old guard seem to be nervous about his all embracing personality. I don't think the Catholic Church would be too happy about there pope getting involved with atheists in any shape or form
Hardly. In all likelihood the Pope could care less about atheists, and is unlikely to become involved with atheists to any significant extent. The true target audience was not intended to be atheists, but centrist and liberal Catholics who were beginning to split from the Church. Taking a more centrist stance on issues is a way to return straying members to the fold.
Further, it is likely that rest of the Church leadership is fully aware of this and probably even played a role in formulating the revised approach. Membership was falling, and without membership the power of the Church fails. Obviously, the entire Church cannot do a public 180 turn and this necessitates some criticism or expression of dis-ease.
The Church is, as it has always been, a political tool for men of power. Its leaders are politicians at least as much as they are holy men, if not more so.
I am just going on the the popes speeches In st marks square where he is addressing the public and his speeches certainly could be called all inclusive ,and yes living in a catholic country (Ireland) there is a certain nervousness amongst the clergy about his all embracing personality, that is the perspective I'm getting here
I realize things may have changed in the past month, but I wanted to revisit this now that I have the time again. I'll understand if you'd rather just drop this particular discussion though.
I guess my point was that higher ranking clergy may recognize this new inclusivity as a political move, although that was likely not communicated down the ranks. Much as federal secrets and high politics to do not frequently work their way down the ranks. It is somewhat difficult for me to assess how accurate this is though, since I'm not sure how much of the Catholic demographic is conservative and how much moderate to liberal. My family is Catholic, but I wasn't really raised within the folds of Church. I just know that the trend in the US seems to be towards moderate Catholicism and the divide has been very marked here. I wonder if in Ireland that split is so pronounced?
How do you know that? How do you know that the word of god isn't also in texts that aren't included in your bible? How can you be sure that your bible contains nothing but the word of god?
Do you think that god once wanted us to put adulterers to death? In some people's bibles, god is reported to have said this. My opinion is that people once lived by some really crazy "biblical" rules, supposed to come from god. Is this what you mean by awfully misleading?
1. My understanding of the role of the Pope was that they were to be the spokesperson/mouthpiece of God and that their interpretations of the Bible superseded prior interpretations?
2. (a) How is the notion of mercy superseding justice selfish?
2. (b) Is it not the case with anti-athiest interpretations of the Bible that Christians who do not act in a Christian manner may still receive the mercy of God, yet atheists who act in a Christian manner will not receive the the mercy of God? How is that not an instance of God's mercy overcoming his justice for the convenience of Christians? If Christians are allowed to err in significant ways, why not atheists be allowed to err in one? How does this not create a double standard?
1. My understanding of the role of the Pope was that they were to be the spokesperson/mouthpiece of God and that their interpretations of the Bible superseded prior interpretations?
I can't confirm this, as I am not Catholic, but obviously I don't believe all of the Pope's interpretations are accurate.
2. (a) How is the notion of mercy superseding justice selfish?
Because it detracts from the focus on God and the only path to heaven.
2. (b) Is it not the case with anti-athiest interpretations of the Bible that Christians who do not act in a Christian manner may still receive the mercy of God, yet atheists who act in a Christian manner will not receive the the mercy of God? How is that not an instance of God's mercy overcoming his justice for the convenience of Christians? If Christians are allowed to err in significant ways, why not atheists be allowed to err in one? How does this not create a double standard?
Acting in a Christian manner is not what determines one's salvation.
1. I see. However, I rather think the point of the Pope is that he is the mouthpiece of God... so it would seem that the will of God is to let mercy supersede justice, or even to the equate the two as they need not be mutually exclusive.
2. If the focus of God is on people believing in God rather than acting as God would will them to, then I suppose giving preference to mercy would rather undermine that. The notion seems a bit asinine to me however; it hinges on an egocentric and self-absorbed deity who cares not at all about the actions of mankind beyond their worship of him. Heaven is the reward for worship not of good conduct and good will. I wonder if the heaven of an megalomaniac is not something of a contradiction in terms.
